A reader has asked, what are some successful ineffective assistance of counsel cases? To answer the question, I decided to create another checklist. It is designed similar to the free post-conviction checklist and free habeas corpus checklist.
The ineffective assistance of counsel checklist is a topical collection of cases where counsel’s representation was determined deficient. The checklist is intended to assist in the search for, and offer guidance on, possible claims.
It’s important to remember when presenting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, two elements must be shown: 1) that the representation fell below professional norms and, 2) the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficiency. For more discussion on these two requirements, I suggest reading my post, what is ineffective assistance of counsel.
Most states, and all federal courts, adhere to the common two-part test defined in Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) when considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This standard is used when evaluating trial, plea agreement, sentencing, appellate and post-conviction counsel.
While it is impossible to identify every instance where counsel may have been ineffective, there are common events in every criminal case. All convicted individuals had some form of police interaction. Every defendant progressed though court proceedings and was pronounced “guilty” following a trial or entering into a plea agreement. Every defendant was subsequently sentenced. Throughout this journey, there exists the possibility counsel may have performed deficiently.
What is the ineffective assistance of counsel checklist?
To help locate, research and develop a potential ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this checklist contains a listing of events wherein some form of ineffectiveness occurred. The identified areas begin with the court’s jurisdiction, progress through the conduct of a trial, and continue through sentencing, appellate and the post-conviction stages.
With each identified legal event, there is an applicable case where ineffectiveness has previously been found. For example, did counsel promise a certain witness would testify during opening statements and then fail to produce the witness? This scenario sites the case of Anderson v. Butler, 858 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1988). Maybe counsel was deficient for failing to file a motion to suppress an illegally obtained confession, as in Burford v. State, 320 So.3d 502 (Miss. 2021).
Whatever the issue might be, after reviewing the identified case, a defendant can become familiar with the legal requirements for presenting their own similar claim.
The ineffective assistance of counsel checklist is not intended to replace legal counsel. Rather, its purpose is to guide analysis of various procedural events wherein ineffectiveness may be discovered.
However, I am also aware many defendants are self reliant during the initial post conviction process when initially articulating an ineffective assistance claim. Therefore, if you know someone who is incarcerated, print and send them this list for free. I’m sure they would be thankful.
Simply complete the form below to receive your free copy of the ineffective assistance of counsel checklist. Enjoy the list and if possible, share it with someone else.